Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Yesterday I pondered if Sarah 'one trick pony' Wollaston was going to present her cherry-picked figures to the House.

Well, there was certainly an echo of her Politics Home piece, in the form of the gem we keep hearing, ad nauseam, from anti-alcohol campaigners.

[...] the Sheffield study showed that minimum pricing at 50p per unit would only add an extra £12 a year to the cost for moderate drinkers.

This being one tiny number in a table on page 140 of this 570 page report (the actual figure is £11.81).

Though she was hampered, for at least a while, by a certain (teetotal) esteemed blog mascot of ours. Here are a few highlights.

As a libertarian and a believer in individual freedoms, I had hoped that the country had escaped from the nanny-state health police with the end of the previous Labour Government but, sadly, I was clearly naive in that thought.

[...]

The very principle of minimum pricing goes against all my Conservative instincts and beliefs—the free market and freedom of choice.

(NB, this is in opposition to a fellow Tory!)

Minimum pricing treats all drinkers the same, and penalises—financially and practically—the overwhelming majority of adults, all those people who drink alcohol responsibly and in a socially acceptable way, causing harm neither to themselves nor to others.

[...]

... people should be free to spend their own money as they so wish, without having to obtain the permission of my hon. Friend before they decide how to live their life, in particular if no one else is affected; it is their responsibility.

[...]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies produced a report on minimum pricing that found that poorer households, compared with richer households, on average pay less for a unit of off-sale alcohol. ... As a result, a minimum price of 40p or 45p per unit would have a larger impact on poorer households and virtually no impact on richer ones.

[...]

I worry where this will stop. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes return to the House in a few months’ time and urge us to ban the advertising of cream cakes, pizzas, chocolate, fish and chips or curry, because they are all bad for us if eaten to excess? This is a slippery slope, and certainly not one that I am prepared to support.

Bravo! That dig must have been memorable too, considering this Twitter exchange between the two last night.

Our boy also made a very sage prediction.

I will not give way, because plenty of other people want to speak and time is pressing. I will happily debate with him [Lib Dem John Pugh] in the Tea Room or at some other point, although I am the only one arguing from this perspective, I suspect.

Bang on! If you read the whole debate, it was one pompous arse after another rising to honk like seals at the prospect of inflicting extra cost on every low-paid adult who enjoys alcohol, while increasing - according to the same page of the same Sheffield report Wollaston refers to - income to the off-trade by around £225m.

Where on Earth are Labour on this? Where is the outrage? Well, actually, there was one who was clever enough to have worked it out.

Eric Joyce (Falkirk, Labour): It is all very well for those who are not affected by it, but essentially [minimum pricing] is aimed at the least well-off, who may continue to spend the same amount on alcohol, or more, because it will be more expensive for them, and spend less elsewhere.

The hon. Lady has switched from white cider to wine, the implication being that people who drink moderately drink wine. In fact, she is arguing that less well-off people should pay more and middle-class people should pay the same. That identifies that the problem is only with less well-off people.

Yup.

Of course, other Labour contributions were sadly ignorant of their voters' interests. Diane Abbott - despite facts showing otherwise - claimed alcohol consumption is on the up, while Valerie Vaz would have had Alcohol Concern doing backflips with this supreme example of self-righteous paternalism.

There should be a change in licensing hours and pubs should shut at 10pm again.

On tax, we have said that we will raise alcohol duty by 2% above inflation—the retail prices index—each year to 2014-15. We have introduced a new extra duty on high-strength beers to discourage people from drinking cheap, super-strength lagers. Likewise, there is now a reduced rate of duty on lower-alcohol beers to encourage people to switch.

[...]

We are also working with industry and non-governmental organisations to remove a significant number of units of alcohol from the UK market through changes in how alcohol is produced and sold.

Ah, this ties in with Nanny Beeb's feature on R4 yesterday on the attractiveness of low alcohol beers (message: so improved in taste and body that non-driving drinkers are opting for them rather than normal strength beers which result in 'feeling tired' after two pints!)

This isn't a test. "There should be a change in licensing hours and pubs should shut at 10pm again."But they'll be open at reasonable hours for those that don't have jobs and therefore need anaesthetising from their conscience, right? I just wish that the government would go right ahead and just do it. Ban drinking, smoking, shooting, hunting, fishing, swearing, blaspheming, fornicating without a license, spitting, salt, Burberry, blogging, tweeting and any other ing deemed dangerous, offensive, subversive, individual or anything guaranteed to gain a tut from the Daily Mail. Put the fall out of that on PPV and you can have my coin ESPN.

"There should be a change in licensing hours and pubs should shut at 10pm again."Of course, she wants the pub to be open at convenient time for those who don't work and need to anaesthetise their consciences for voting in slavery for those that pay their benefits, right? I just wish that the government would go right ahead and just do it. Ban drinking, smoking, shooting, hunting, fishing, swearing, blaspheming, fornicating without a license, spitting, salt, Burberry, blogging, tweeting and any other ing deemed dangerous, offensive, subversive, individual or anything guaranteed to gain a tut from the Daily Mail. If you can get that on PPV, then Mr ESPN, you can have my coin.

"There should be a change in licensing hours and pubs should shut at 10pm again."

Of course, she wants the pub to be open at convenient time for those who don't work and need to anaesthetise their consciences for voting in slavery for those that pay their benefits, right?

I just wish that the government would go right ahead and just do it. Ban drinking, smoking, shooting, hunting, fishing, swearing, blaspheming, fornicating without a license, spitting, salt, Burberry, blogging, tweeting and any other ing deemed dangerous, offensive, subversive, individual or anything guaranteed to gain a tut from the Daily Mail. If you can get that on PPV, then Mr ESPN, you can have my coin.

Thanks for bringing Petra Meier’s “work” to theattention of a wider audience Dick. It is not independent in that it wascommissioned directly by the DH guided by the likes of Kevin Barron who is anoutspoken advocate of minimum pricing and who has difficulty with simple conceptslike the truth.

It is a deeply biased piece of junk assembledby a psychology graduate who would be torn to shreds if she ever tried to passit off as real science.

Not only does Meier defy common sense with respect to hardeneddrinkers and price elasticity of alcohol but she adds utter stupidity to herdeception with respect to moderate drinkers. Here is one example courtesy of the BBC:

“A 50p limit should cut alcohol consumption amongmoderate drinkers by about 3.5%, or half a unit for women and two-thirds of aunit for men.”

The conceit and lack of scientific rigour behind sucha ridiculous assumption is breathtaking but sadly appealing to intellectually challenged autocrats likeBarron and Abbott.

Is there is a better example of the sheer unpleasantnessthat arises from combining naked ambition with intellectual inadequacythan Diane Abbott?

lt's heartening to read Philip on Hansard in full but l always come away in despair after reading what other MP's have said. lt's beyond belief that there are so many with such low intelligence and l strongly suspect integrity in a position to determine how we live our lives. l truly do despair.

"It's heartening to read Philip on Hansard in full but l always come away in despair after reading what other MP's have said. lt's beyond belief that there are so many with such low intelligence and l strongly suspect integrity in a position to determine how we live our lives. l truly do despair."

Here in Wolverhampton South West, we have Paul Uppal. A multimillionaire property developer whose theyworkforyou.com profile is chock full of questions and comments to the house advocating tax relief for which subset of the economy? Correct, property developers. If it isn't naked self interest then he's lobbing soft ones up for the party. Despairing seems to be the only thing we can do.

A splendid, informative and much needed summary, Dick. I remember the days when broadsheet newspapers devoted a whole page to reports of Commons proceedings - as opposed to Lobby comment. Why am I not surprised, by the way, that Caroline Lucas (Green Party) so emphatically opposed our boy, who most definitely done great?

There are quite a few, mostly Tories. Look for the October 10 minute rule bill vote by David Nuttall on amending the smoking ban for those who were in support. A few LD and Lab types too, but very few.